The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-04-21
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.
A. H. Willie, chief Justice; Associate
Justices j. W. Stayton and R. r. Gaines;
Charles S.. Morse, clerk; NJ. M. Johnson,
bailiff.
| A. M. McMurray VS.. F. j. McMurray,
from Live Oak county. Opinion by Stay
ton, j.
This action was brought by appellant
on January 81, 1885, to vacate decree
rendered on March Is, 1888 in that court,
and to recover her share of the commu-
nifty property. Appellant claims that
she was defrauded by willtully false testi-
mony of her husband on the trial of an
action for divorce instituted by him.
The appellants petition alleges that she
was in Louisiana, one thousand miles
away, with the consent of her husband,
when she was served with notice of pro-
ceedings for divorce She alleges that
she was without means to come to Texas,
but procured counsel by letter, and such
evidence as was possible. That
she had not abandoned her hus-
band, and that he instituted the pro-
ceilings with the intention to defraud her
of her interest in the community property.
That her husband testified falsely that his
PlOPOlpJ was ohlJ pAUJbOO, WuCll Ill ICdllIy
in was $4,000, all of which was commu-
nifty property except about $1,000, and
that she only got $1,S00, in the decree of
the court. The reasonable inference was
that the falsity of the evidence was not
discovered until after the term of court
at which the judgment was rendered. The
demurrers to the petition were sustained
and the cause dismissed.
The district courts of this state doubt
less have all the powers of courts of equity
to give relief where a judgment has been
obtained by fraud or mistake, and the
question in this case is whether the facts
entitled the appellent to relief. Appel
lants petition charges that her husband
willfully testified fraudulently about the
amount of his property, but it is general
ly held that a judgment will not be
vacated unless the false testimony was in-
PRODUCED through the procurement of the
party benefited by it.
The question of recorsidering decree
or Judgment has been largely discussed,
and there have been many decisions rela-
tive to it, but the preponderance and
weight of opinions are that where a decree
or judgment has been obtained by false
testimony which could not have been dis
covered by the diligence of the party, or
his counsel, before the decree, relief should
be granted, although the welfare of So
ciety demands as a rule that cases de-
cided by court of competent Jurisdiction
should not be relitigated.
In the case before us it appears that
the decree was granted mainly on the
false testimony as alleged by appellants
petition, and as to community property,
the husband should act in good faith re-
specting the rights of his wife, as he is in
vested with its management and is pre-
sumed to know all about it. The law pro-
tects those who labor under its inoapa
cities.
For the error in sustaining demurrer in
dismissing the petition the judgment is
reversed and the cause remanded.
j. @. Overstreet w. E. r. Manning, from
Shackelford county. Opinion by Willie,
j.
This was suit brought by appellant
against appellees, r. Z. Watts, A. p. Root
and G. L. Price, to recover from Watts
three promissory notes, and to forclose a
lien given by Watts on flock of sheep,
which, it was claimed, beloDge1 to Watts,
who set up no defense, and judgment was
taken against him.
Root and Price set up claim against a
half interest of the sheep by a convey
ance made before the execution of the
notes; the claim was abandoned as to
them, and went to issue only as to appel
lee.
Appellee claimed other half interest in
the sheep, in consideration for debt due
by Watts to him, and his assumption of J
two other debts, one of which he had paid |
and the other he bound himself to pay,
both of which we're liens on said pro-
perty. The judgment was rendered